Clean Scheme Layout

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the tool does not change the source file, which is a useful behavioral note, but it does not disclose what 'clean' does, whether it produces an output file, or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool with a mutating-sounding action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and adds the key constraint. It is concise, though it sacrifices needed detail for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this tool demands a richer description. The one-liner does not explain the cleaning approach, output handling, or preview behavior. The agent lacks sufficient information to invoke it correctly beyond providing input_path.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly references input_path via 'existing CDXML reaction layout' but does not explain approach, output_path, or render_preview. The agent gets no guidance on what these parameters mean or how they affect behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('clean') and the resource ('existing CDXML reaction layout'), and adds the distinguishing constraint 'without changing the source file.' This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like polish_reaction_scheme, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., polish_reaction_scheme, render_scheme). It does not provide context, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.